The U.S. Gulf of Mexico Charter Boat Industry: Activity Centers, Species Targeted, and Fisheries Management Opinions

Transcription

1 The U.S. Gulf of Mexico Charter Boat Industry: Activity Centers, Species Targeted, and Fisheries Management Opinions STEPHEN M. HOLLAND, ROBERT B. DITTON, and DUANE A. GILL Introduction In managing fish stocks, management agencies need information on the various sectors of the recreational fishing industry. Access to some nearshore and offshore fishing resources requires the use of a boat. The three major means of accessing offshore recre- Stephen M. Holland is with the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Robert B. Ditton is with the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 778. Duane A. Gill is with the Department of Sociology/Anthropology and Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 97. Views or opinions expressed or implied are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. ABSTRACT-The charter boat industry in U. S. Gulf of Mexico provides access to offshore fishing opportunities for about 7, passengers per year on 971 boats. A % random sample of charter boat operators was interviewed during to determine species targeted, percent time committed to targeting each species, and reactions to existing catch restrictions. Three-fourths of the charter boat fleet was in Florida, 1% in Texas, % in Louisiana, % in Alabama, and % in Mississippi. Responses were diverse rerarding species focus within the region. Species of dominant importance included groupers, Epinephelus sp. and Mycteroperca sp. (Fla.); snapper, Lutjanus campechanus (Ala., Fla., Miss., and La.); king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla (Miss., Tex., Ala. and Fla.); spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus (Tex. and La.); and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Tex. and La). Catch restrictions were generally supported with higher levels of opposition to restricted high effort fish and/or one fish or closed fishery limits. ational fishing involve private boats, party (or head) boats, and charter boats. Because of the disaggregate nature of the marine recreational fishing industry, understanding the total picture is difficult (Dubose and Radonski, 198). Partitioning the industry offers a better approach to collecting data required by managers in support of decision making. Recent regulatory notices define a charter boat as "a vessel whose operator is licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry paying passengers and whose passengers fish for a fee" ( FR 9). Most charter boats charge a group rate (generally >$ for passengers but sometimes offer a lower price for or ), restrict their carrying capacity to passengers plus crew members, and operate only when chartered by a person or group. Charter boat businesses are found in coastal areas adjacent to tourism destinations, major urban areas, and commercial fishing ports (Fraser et ai., 1977). Charter boats generally solicit public business for offshore fishing trips. Charter boats operating in the Gulf of Mexico average in size from feet in Texas to feet in Alabama (Ditton et a!., 1988; Holland and Milon, 1989). Most boats have twin engines with horsepower ratings ranging from 1 to. Stock assessments reveal that many fish populations have declined dramatically as have numbers and sizes of fish caught (Bohnsack, 1989; Goodyear, 1988; Ralston, 1987; Russ and Alcala, 1989). Saltwater anglers, including those using charter boats, participated in a virtually unregulated recreational fishery prior to the 198's (Ditton, et ai., 199). The classic tragedy of a common property resource (Hardin, 198; Swanson et ai., 1978) unfolded with dramatic increases in commercial and recreational harvest, electronic fish finders that enhance fish targeting capabilities, and an increasing number of anglers (Loomis and Ditton, 1988; Snepenger and Ditton, 198). In response, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, for example, adopted fishery management plans (FMP) for reef fish ( CFR 1), mackerels ( CFR ), red drum ( CFR ), and Atlantic billfishes ( CFR ) to regulate commercial and recreational fisheries including charter boat operators and customers. Fishery management councils make decisions based on their understanding of how fishing pressure will be modified and how potential regulations will impact each fishing sector. FMP's are required to provide "a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved... the species of fish involved and their location, the costs likely to be incurred in management... any recreational interests in the fishery... [and] areas in which fishing was engaged in..." (1 U.S.c. 18a). This information was not available when some regulations were promulgated. An example of fisheries management actions affecting charter boats is the FMP and amendments for coastal migratory pelagics ( CFR ) impacting king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla, fishing. Before 198, there were no limits on king mackerel in Fed (),199 1

2 eral waters. On Sept. 198, Gulf charter boat operators were restricted to a possession limit of king mackerel per person per trip, excluding captain and crew or king mackerels per person per trip including captain and crew, whichever is the greater ( FR 8). On Aug. 1987, all charter boat operators targeting king mackerel were required to register with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and obtain a king mackerel permit to target and retain this species. From 1 Dec through June 1988; 17 Dec through June 1989; 1 May 199 through June 199; and Dec. 199 to June 1991, NMFS implemented a zero bag limit prohibiting retention as recreational allocations were achieved. In addition, beginning July 1989 ( FR 9), selected charter boats were required to maintain daily fishing records and submit them weekly. Harvest restrictions have the potential to impact charter boat businesses because of relatively high charter fees and their impact on angler expectations of catching fish. Charter boat businesses have nourished expectation for years with advertisements emphasizihg catch. In a survey of 1 charter boat anglers, about half said "to catch a lot of fish" was at least a moderately important reason for taking their trip (HoIland, 1988). "Wanting to catch a particular fish" was another important motivation for percent of the anglers. Fisheries regulations have been partially responsible for charter business failures (Ditton and Loomis, 198; Ditton and Vize, 1987). Restrictions now exist on Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus; red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus; grouper, Epinephelus sp. and Mycteroperca sp.; amberjack, Seriola dumerili; cobia, Rachycentron canadum; and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. Also, states have enacted regulations to restrict harvest in their waters (Gissendanner, 198; Matlock, 198). Discussions are continuing regarding the need for additional restrictions and closures to prevent overfishing and rebuild stocks (NMFS, 199). In the face of proliferating fishing regulations in the Gulf, the main responses available to charter operators are to quit the charter business, resist current and new fishing regulations, and/or target other species. However, few offshore species have escaped regulation. Managers need to know when and where charter boat fishing occurs so they can estimate potential economic and social impacts of fishery management rules. Charter boats are not only an important segment of the marine recreational fishing industry but an important component of the tourism economy in some communities (Manfredo et ai., 1988; Roehl et ai., 1989). Areas such as Islamorada, Panama City Beach, Destin, Orange Beach, South Padre Island, and Port Aransas receive significant direct and indirect economic impacts from fishing. Information on the regional distribution and numbers of charter boats would enhance understanding of the role of charter boats in tourism. Previous research on charter boats has focused primarily on local economic impacts (Bell et ai., 198; Prochaska and Morris, 1977; Samples et ai., 198; Taylor et a!., 198). Other studies have focused primarily on catch data from specific areas (Brusher and Palko, 198; Brusher et ai., 198; McEachron and Matlock, 198). There have been a series of studies with a statewide focus but these are geographically and temporally scattered making comparisons and conclusions inconsistent (Ditton et a!., 1978; Etzold et a!., 1977; Falk et a!., 198; Lichtkoppler et a!., 1987; Marshall and Lucy, 1981). Browder et al. (1978) published a more detailed picture of the charter boat industry, but it was limited to the Gulf coast of Florida. They studied charter boat activity centers, social and economic characteristics of operators, and the species targeted by season. This approach was partially replicated by Ditton et al. (1988) and Holland and Milon (1989) to portray charter boat characteristics and actions in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The data presented in this paper were taken from these two studies. In 198, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Initiative program (MARFIN) was created to enhance the quantity and quality of available data on recreational and commercial fishing in the Gulf. Christmas et al. (198) noted the following research needs: 1) "it is imperative to improve the marine recreational fisheries data base"; ) "much of the information needed...to access the nature and impact of recreational fishing on these resources does not exist"; ) "This situation is hindering and, in some cases, preventing the optimum use of the Gulf's fishing resources"; ) "Accurate information on...recreational Charter and Party boats in the Gulf region...does not exist or is not readily available even though such information would be a valuable tool for management purposes." Because of inadequate knowledge of the industry, the importance of total economic and resource impacts and the need to understand the effect of increasing fishery management regulations, a Gulfwide study of the charter boat industry was undertaken in 198. This paper describes the size and distribution of the charter fleet in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, species targeted by state, estimated fishing pressure, and operator opinions on current regulations for select species. Methods Whereas the population of charter boats is constantly changing, estimates placed the number in the U.S. Gulf at between 8 and 1,. The sampling frame was derived from the 198 and 198 charter boat lists maintained by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center, an inventory of charter boats maintained by the NMFS Southeast Regional Office and Panama City Laboratory, and on-site information provided by charter operators, NMFS, and project personnel. The final sample frame listed 971 boats. Charter boats were stratified by activity centers and randomly sampled. Letters or phone calls were used to contact operators to explain the intent of the survey and encourage participation. Sample sizes varied with the boat population in each state ranging from a percent sample of the 7 charter boats in Florida to percent of the 18 charter boats in Mississippi. Marine Fisheries Review

3 A 19-page interview schedule was developed to collect information on the operator's background and demographics, boat description, species information, operating policy, boat operation, business structure, community ties, and opinions on current regulations. The interview schedule was pretested and revisions made as a result of the pretest. In this paper, we focus on data concerning species targeted, percent time committed to targeting each species, and attitudes toward current catch restrictions on select species. First, for each boat sampled, operators were given a list of species and asked to indicate which were targeted during each of the previous 1 months. Second, they were asked "what percent of your fishing time was devoted to targeting each of these species" during each of four -month periods. Percent time targeting selected species for each -month-period was additive to 1%. Finally, using a -point balanced Likerttype scale, operators were asked if they supported or opposed current recreational catch restrictions on six species. Charter boat operators in Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama were interviewed by trained field personnel during May through August Operators in Florida were interviewed during February through July Each interview took - minutes per boat. In some cases, prior-contacted operators were unavailable and alternative captains were substituted. Interviews were completed with 1 of 7 charter boats in Florida, 19 of 8 in Alabama, 1 of 1 in Mississippi, 1 of 8 in Louisiana, and of 18 in Texas. The overall final sample was % of the known population of charter boats. Results Three-fourths of the charter boats were located in Florida, 1% in Texas, and II % in the northern Gulf states (Table I; Fig. I). Major activity centers in Florida were Key West, Islamorada, Naples, Ft. Myers Beach, Boca Grande, Clearwater, Panama City/ Panama City Beach, Destin, and Pensacola. The three highest concentrations of charter boats were Destin, the Panama City!Panama City Beach Table 1.-Distribution of population of charter boats in the U.S. Gult of Mexico by state and area. Population State and area No. Percenl Texas 1 Port Isabel-Port Aransas. Rockport-Port Arthur 9 8 Subtotal 18 1.% Northern Gulf states. Louisiana. Mississippi. Alabama Florida. Panhandle 7. West Peninsula 8. Keys Subtotal 7 78 Grand total area, and Islamorada. Major activity centers in the other four states included Orange Beach (Alabama), Grand Isle... Q) t: ro.s= ()... c ~ " a.. 1 Chauvin-Cocodrie-Houma (Louisiana), Port Aransas (Texas), and South Padre Island-Port Isabel (Texas). By extrapolation, we estimated that charter boats made 1, trips/year and carried about 8, passengers during the previous 1 months. State extrapolations estimated 8, trips and 7,897 passengers for Florida; 1,81 trips and 1, passengers for Texas;, II trips and, passengers for Louisiana;,97 trips and 1,9 passengers for Alabama; and 1,9 trips and 7,9 passengers for Louisiana. The mean number of trips per year was fairly consistent ranging from 9 in Mississippi to 18 in Florida with a weighted Gulfwide mean of 1 charter trips per year. Gulfwide, % of the trips were full-day trips and % of the passengers went between April Regions Figure I_-Regional distribution of charter boats in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. (),199

4 and June, the heaviest season. A full 8% of the passengers utilized boats Florida ( ), and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico by species docked in Florida. Assuming 9% of targeted. the passengers fished for hours of Number of charter boats Table.-Number of charter boats operating from Texas. Louisiana. Mississippi. Alabama (198-87). fishing/full day trip and. hours/half US. day trip, an estimated total of,8, Species Tex. La. Miss. Ala. Fla. Gulf hours of fishing was attributable to Amberjack ], anglers on charter boats Barracuda 71 8 Black!in tuna 79 annually. Blue marlin Bluefin tuna 87 9 The degree of species dependency Bluefish 8 9 varied across the region (Table ). Most Bonito Cobia notable is the contrast between charter Dolphin boats in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama Flounder 1 1 Grouper where 79%, %, and 7% of the boats, King mackerel respectively, targeted < species, com Ladyfish Red drum pared with Mississippi and Florida Saiifish Shark boats where and 9%, respectively, tar Snapper geted < species. In Mississippi, % Spanish mackerel 1 1 Spotted seatrout 99 of the boats targeted ~8 species, while Swordfish 1 % targeted ~8 species in Florida. Wahoo White marlin The species targeted by most (>) Yeifowfin tuna boats include king mackerel, snapper, groupers, dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus; shark, Carcharhinus sp., and sarda; and shark. Since operators tar geted several species, columns in Table are not additive and hence percents would be meaningless. Estimates of mean percent time spent targeting each species by charter op erators quantified the degree of vari ability across the region (Table ). Each state has a few species that dominate targeting time such as spotted seatrout in Texas and Louisiana with red drum and snapper also strong; king and spanish mackerel in Mississippi; snap per and king mackerel in Alabama; and grouper, snapper, dolphin, and king mackerel in Florida. The table lists ag- cobia (Table ). Species sought by > but < boats included spanish mackerel; wahoo, Acanthocybium solanderi; sailfish, lstiophorus platypterus; blue marlin, Makaira nigricans; great barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda; blackfin tuna, Thunnus atlanticus; and white marlin, Tetrapterus albidus. Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and red drum were relatively important to charter boat operators in Texas and Louisiana but only targeted by about 1 percent of the operators in Florida. Species targeted by most Florida operators included grouper, king mackerel, snapper, amberjack, dolphin, bonito, Sarda Table.-Distribution of number of species targeted by the number of charter boats in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during a 1-year period by state. No. of species targeted >1 Tex. No La. % Miss Ala Fla U.S. Gulf Totals 1' lbecause No.'s are extrapolated, there is some rounding error which accounts for slight deviations from state total No. reported in other tables. gregate means for each state's sample of boats, and consequently reported averages may not reflect the individual actions of anyone boat. Another indication of the extent of targeting diversity is the number of species receiving ~ percent of mean targeting time/state. Texas and Louisiana have species that meet this criteria, Alabama, 8; Mississippi, 1; and Florida, 1. An estimate of effort units by the population of charter boats revealed the Florida fleet dominated with 8% overall (Table ). Species with the highest overall effort were (in descending order): Grouper, snapper, king mackerel, dolphin, amberjack, and spotted seatrout. These species accounted for most (8%) of the estimated effort. Grouper, snapper, and amberjack received most of the effort in the Panhandle and Peninsula sections of Florida, king mackerel in the Panhandle and Keys of Florida, dolphin in the Florida Keys (and relatively little in the rest of the state), and spotted seatrout and red drum in Texas and Louisiana. Snapper was the dominant species in Alabama, and king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and snapper received most of the effort by Mississippi operators. As a final indication of orientation toward selected species, operators were asked to express opposition or support for current catch restrictions. At the time of the data collection, the following restrictions (Federal EEZ limits unless otherwise noted) were in place relative to charter fishing operations: King mackerel, three fish bag limit excluding captain and crew; Spanish mackerel, 1-inch fork length minimum size and four-fish bag limit; red snapper, 1 inch fork length minimum size limit with a five undersize fish tolerance and various state size and bag limits; cobia, -inch fork length minimum size; red drum, a one-fish EEZ bag limit existed which was reduced to zero on I Jan and, at the state level, various size limits, bag limits, and closed seasons existed; spotted seatrout, no EEZ limits existed but various size and bag limits were operable at the state levels; bluefin tuna, annual retention of one bluefin greater than 77 inches fork Marine Fisheries Review

5 recreational fishery for these two species between 1 Dec and June Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida 1988 when the recreational allocation (n=8) (n=1) (n=9) (n=1) (n=18) had been reached. Because of migra Table.-Estimated mean percent time targeting selected species by charter boat operators in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Species X S.E. X S.E. X S.E. X S.E. X S.E. tory pattern for these species, this clo Amberjack sure affected Florida operators more Barracuda Blackfin tuna than those in other States. Red drum Blue marlin opposition also reflected a total closure Bluefin tuna Bluefish in effect for several months as well as Bonito the one-fish bag limit for Louisiana Cobia Dolphin anglers. Flounder Grouper Discussion King mackerel Ladyfish Red drum It appears there has been overall Sailfish.8 as..8.8 as evenhandedness in controlling harvest Shark Snapper throughout the U.S Gulf of Mexico. Spanish mackerel However, red drum limits have had a Spotted seatrout Swordfish greater impact on Mississippi, Louisi Wahoo. as White marlin ana, and Texas operators, and mack Yellowfin tuna erel closures have more seriously affected some Florida operators. Florida charter boats target the widest variety length with no limits on smaller fish. Most opposition was in Texas and Ala- of species (% of Florida operators The majority of operators supported bama for red snapper minimum size fish for ~ 1 species) with 77% of the fishery regulations except in the case and possession limits, Louisiana for the effort focused on 7 species. These opof closures or one-fish limits. There was red drum one-fish limit, and Florida for erators have more flexibility than those % support for catch restrictions over- king and Spanish mackerel and red in other areas in targeting substitutes all with a 78% support level for cobia drum regulations. The relatively high for restricted species. The Alabama and minimum size limits (Table ). There opposition to king and Spanish mack- Mississippi charter boat operators are were greater levels of support in Mis- erel restrictions in Florida was prob- less varied. Notably, 79% of Alabama sissippi and Alabama for all species. ably a reaction to the closure of the operators and % of Mississippi operators target <::,7 species. More specifi cally, 8% of the Alabama effort fo cused on two species, and 7% of the Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida U.S. Gulf Mississippi effort focused on five species. In the western Gulf (Louisiana and Table.-Estimated effort units for species targeted by charter boats by state and region. Species Texas), targeting is concentrated with Amberjack ' ,1 8.8, 7. % of Louisiana operators and 79% Barracuda.1 a. <1. 1,. 1,9. Blackfin tuna 1..1 a as of Texas operators targeting <::, species Blue marlin 1. a. a. <1 1,8. 1,1 1.9 Bluefin tuna 1. a.. a <.1 with 9% of Louisiana effort and 91 % Bluefish a < as of Texas effort focused on three spe Bonito 7 a ,88.9 1,89 Cobia ,. 1,.7 cies. The inability of operators in some Dolphin 18 as. 1..,99 1.,1 9 regions to substitute alternative species Flounder a a a. < Grouper 18. a , , 1.8 could lead to increased business King failures. mackerel ,.8,88.7 Ladyfish a a In designing an allocation scheme, Red drum 1, ,717. Sailfish 7. a. 1..1,79 7,9.8 FMP's should consider factors such as Shark ,9.7,7.9 economic and social consequences and Snapper , 71.,8 1. 8,99 1. Spanish dependence on the fishery by present mackerel <1 a ,1 1,77. participants and coastal communities Spotted seatrout,1.1 1, ,77.7 ( CFR.1 sect. c, iv). The Swordfish <1. a.. <1. <.1.1 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Wahoo.1 a 1.1 1,9. 1,7 19 White marlin 8. a Management Act of 197 (1 USC Yellowfin tuna I a as < ), section 181a states Total,999 1., 1. 1., 1. 7,8 1,19 1. "Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between 'Effort units were calculated by multiplying the population of charter boats in each state (Table 1) by fhe mean percent time targeted for each species by the sample of charter boat captains in each state (Table ). residents of different states. If... (),199

6 Table.-Percent of charter boat operators supporting or opposing catch restrictions for selected species in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico by state. Texas (n=9) La. (n=19) Miss. (n=9) Alabama (n=19) Florida (n=1) U.S. Gulf (n=8) Species %8 1 % %8 % %8 % %S % %S % %8 % Bluefin tuna Cobia NA' 7 King mackerel 7' Red drum 88 Red snapper 9 Spanish mackerel NA NA NA Spotted seatrout NA lo/os = Percent of operators supporting restrictions. % = Percent of operators opposing restrictions. 'NA = Not asked. Residual percents are captains who were neutral. necessary... allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen... and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges." Section 181a goes on to say: "Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishing resources, and catches." The data.reported in this study establish a perspective from which decisions on these issues can begin to be made. Each species-specific catch restriction will likely have differential impacts due to regional differences in species preference or dependence. Snapper dominates targeting in Alabama; king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and snapper are the focus in Mississippi; spotted seatrout, red drum, and snapper are the primary targets in Louisiana, and spotted seatrout, red drum, and king mackerel are the dominant species in Texas. This information can be used to understand why opposition to existing and proposed management actions varies from one area to another. Although the scope of charter fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is substantial (particularly in Florida), it is secondary to private boats. Estimates for the five Gulf states indicate that % of saltwater anglers fished from private boats and % from charter/party boats (USFWS, 1988, 1989). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, ) Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey estimated the proportion of all trips in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico by private boats was 8% and 7% for charter/party boats. About 8% of the total number of fish caught was taken by anglers in private boats. Regulatory measures may be more effective with private boat owners since they account for a larger proportion of harvest. Also, private boat owners have greater latitude in coping with new regulations and their impacts than charter boat operators. Private boat operators do not have to "justify" a $ fee with a sizeable catch, nor do they need to earn a living through fishing. The economic benefits to charter operators and community businesses (hotels, restaurants, gas stations, bait shops, ice distributors, etc.) are substantial. By extrapolating expenditures per angler from a survey of 1 charter boat customers (Holland, 1988), we estimated $1 million in total direct expenditures by charter boat anglers in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Hiring a charter boat for a day of deep-sea fishing offers a desired vacation option, especially for inland residents. For most anglers, charter/party boat fishing is their only opportunity to experience offshore fishing or to access certain offshore gamefish. Although most highly developed in Florida, deep-sea fishing promotion is being increasingly developed as a tourist attraction in other Gulf states. This paper provides baseline information on the current distribution of charter businesses in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and their species targeting focus. The level of support for fishing regulations reported by operators indicates they understand the threatened condition of the resource. Further, they appear willing to support and abide by regulations, but report higher opposition to species closures and one or two fish bag limits for high-focus species. However, given the dynamics of stock deterioration and recovery, changes are likely in the charter boat industry. This study should be replicated over time to provide trend information regarding target species, effort, and attitudes regarding current and proposed regulations. This could provide a source of empirical information on how charter fishing businesses and anglers are likely to react to changing fisheries regulations in different areas of the Gulf. However, these data do not allow us to quantitatively predict the economic impact that proposed or existing regulations will have or are having on charter businesses and coastal economies. To determine this, we need a more definitive understanding of angler catch rate elasticities for species or species complexes. We need to know more about angler willingness and ability to substitute other species as targets. Understanding variations in angler satisfaction levels with reduced retention of targeted species must also be improved. These topics deserve priority in future research initiatives. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Gulf of Mexico Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Additional funding support was provided by the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station and the University of Florida, Division of Sponsored Research. We appreciate the review comments of Robert G. Muller and Ronald L. Schmied. Also, we acknowledge the efforts of our coinvestigators John R. StoU and 1. Walter Milon, field interviewers and project support staff, and, most importantly, the charter boat operators who voluntarily answered our questions. Marine Fisheries Review

7 Literature Cited Bell, F. W., P. E. Sorensen, and V. R. Leeworthy The economic impact and valuation of saltwater recreational fisheries in Florida. Fla. Sea Grant Coil. Program, Sea Grant Rep. SGR 7,8 p. Bohnsack, J. A The impact of overfishing on tropical fisheries. In J. DeGraaf and D. R. Moore (Editors), Proceedings of the conference on fisheries in crises, p. -9. Gov. Virgin lsi., Dep. Plan. at. Res., Charlotte Amalie. Browder, J. A., J. C. Davis, and B. C. Austin Study of the structure and economics of the recreational paying-passenger fisheries of the Florida Gulf coast and keys, from Pensacola to Key West. U.S. Dep. Commer., OAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Final Rep., Contr ,1 p. Brusher, H. A., M. L. Williams, L. Trent, and B. J. Palko Using charterboat catch records for fisheries management. Mar. Fish. Rev. (): and B. J. Palko Charterboat catch and effort from southeastern U.S. waters, 198. Mar. Fish. Rev. 7():-. Christmas, J. Y., D. J. Etzold, T.D. Mcilwain, and L. B. Simpson Marine Fisheries Initiative: Gulf of Mexico phase. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm., Publ. 1, 1 p. Ditton, R. B., R. N. Jarman, and S. A. Woods An analysis of the charter boat fishing industry on the Texas Gulf coast. Mar. Fish. Rev. (8): and D. K. Loomis Examining business turnover in the Texas charter boat industry: Mar. Fish. Rev. 7( I): and J. D. Vize Business turnover in the Texas charter fishing industry, Mar. Fish. Rev. 9(): , J. R. Stoll, and D. A. Gill The social structure and economics of the charter and party boat fishing fleets in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, atl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Final Rep. Contr. 17, p. ----, A. J. Fedler, and R. Christian The evolution of recreational fisheries management in Texas. J. Ocean Shoreline Manage. 17: Dubose, W. P, and G. C. Radonski Problems confronting the marine recreational fishing industry. In R. H. Stroud (Editor), Marine recreational fisheries 9, p. -. Natl. Coal ition Marine Conserv.. Savannah, Ga. Etzold, D. J.,. O. Murray, and D. V. Veal Charter boat fishing on the Mississippi Gulf coast. Miss.-Ala. Sea Grant Coli. Program, Sea Grant Rep. MASGP-77-1, 1 p. Falk, J. M., A. R. Graefe, C. Alkire, and D. Swartz head/charter-boat fishing in Delaware: An analysis of customers and their economic impact. Del. Sea Grant Coil. Program, Sea Grant Rep. DEL-SG--8, p. Fraser, M. B., J. A. Henderson, and J. F. McManus Survey of commercial sportfishing boats in the coastal United States. Oreg. State Univ. Sea Grant Colk Program, Sea Grant Rep. ORESU-T-77-9, 1 p. Gissendanner, E. J Controversies and conflicts in Florida's marine recreational fisheries. In R.H. Stroud (Editor), Marine recreational fisheries 7, p Sport Fish. Inst., Wash., D.C. Goodyear, C. P Recent trends in the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Southeast Fish. Centr., CRD 87/88-1, 1 p. Hardin, G The tragedy of the commons. Science 1: 1-J 8. Holland, S. M Charter and headboat fishing as a sector of the tourism industry in Florida: Guidelines for greater integration and improved economic vitality. U.S. Dep. Commer., OAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Final Rep. Contr. NA8WC-H-17, 79 p and J. W. Milon The structure and economics of the charter and party boat fishing fleet of the Gulf coast of Florida. U.S. Dep. Commer., OAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Final Rep. Contr. A87WC-H-1I, 78 p. Lichtkoppler, F. R., L. J. Hushak, O. David, and F. L. Snyder The 198 Ohio charter captains survey. Fisheries 1(): Loomis, D. K., and R. D. Ditton Technique for projecting the future growth and distribution of marine recreational fishing demand. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 8:9-. Manfredo, M. J., M. Lee, and K. Ford Alternative markets for charterboat operators affected by declining salmon allocations in Oregon. Coast. Manage. 1:1-7. Marshall, A. R., and J. A. Lucy Virginia's charter and headboat industry: Analysis of catch and socioeconomic impacts. Va. Sea Grant Program, Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point, 9 p. Matlock, G. C The confl ict between user groups of red drum and spotted seatrout in Texas. In R.H. Stroud (Editor), Marine recreational fisheries 7, p Sport Fish. lost.. Wash., D.C. McEachron, L. w., and G. C. Matlock 198. An estimate of harvest by the Texas charter boat industry. Mar. Fish. Rev. (1): -17. MFS. J98. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 198. U.S. Dep. Commer., OAA, atl. Mar. Fish Serv., Curro Fish. Stat. No. 89, 1 p The potential of marine fishery reserves for reef fish management in the U.S. southern Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, atl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Southeast Fish Cent., Tech. Memo. MFS-SEFC-I, p. Prochaska, F. J., and R. A. Morris Primary economic impact of the Florida commercial fishing sector. Fla. Sea Grant Coil. Program. Sea Grant Rep. SGR-, p. Ralston, S Mortality rates of snappers and groupers. In J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston (Editors), Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management, p. 7-. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. Roehl, W. S., R. B. Dinon, and D. R. Fesenmaier Community-toulism ties. Ann. Tour. Res. 1:- J. Russ, G. R., and A. C. Alcala Effects of intense fishing pressure on an assemblage of coral reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. : 1 7. Samples, K. c., J.. Kusakabe, and J. T. Sproul A description and economic appraisal of charter fishing in Hawaii. Univ. Hawaii, Dep. Agric. and Resour. Econ., Admin. Rep. H-8-C, 1 p. Snepenger, D. J. and R. B. Dinon A longitudinal analysis of nationwide hunting and fishing indicators: Leisure Sci. 7: Swanson, G. c., J. L. Seymour, and R. B. Ditton An alternative perspective on common property resource allocation decisions in the coastal zone. Coast. Zone Manage. J. :-. Taylor, K. H., F. J. Prochaska, and J. C. Cato Economic returns in operating Florida Atlantic coast charter and party boats, Fla. Sea Grant ColI. Program, Mar. Adv. Bull. MAP-8, 1 p. USFWS National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C., 17 p ational survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: AL, FL, LA, MS, TX state reports. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C. [Table 9, p. 18]. (), /99 7 -tl u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: / REGION NO.8